DE-DEIFYING RUBIN.

DE-DEIFYING RUBIN.Brad DeLong is not a fan of last month's cover story on Robert Rubin. "It is," he wrote, "the shoddiest thing I have seen The American Prospect publish," which I take as high praise indeed, as I thought it was pretty good! In any case, I'm not Bob Kuttner, and so can only offer up what I got from the article, but DeLong strikes me as too harsh.

Brad's primary problem lies with Bob's recounting of instances when Rubin, a banker by trade, pushed American economic policy in much the way you would expect a banker to have done so. Brad thinks this is a charge of corruption -- "Kuttner does want his readers to think that Rubin is a devious, self-interested plutocrat" -- which isn't quite how I read it. Kuttner's point, I think, was slightly different. It wasn't that Rubin's motivations are malign, but that his history is specific: Rubin's a Wall Street guy. A banker. And while he is a notably public-spirited and even progressive banker, he tends to come down much as a banker would, prioritizing a pro-trade, deficit- reduction agenda. Indeed, I don't think Kuttner is on unsafe ground when he writes, "the Rubin program offers nothing to fundamentally alter the economic risk and stagnation afflicting the broad working middle class." It was Rubin, after all, who convinced the nascent Clinton administration to do NAFTA before health reform -- which I judge a critical mistake. Reasonable people, of course, can disagree on whose priorities are correct, but it's hard to argue with the point that Rubin's priorities and points of focus come from a lifetime in markets, and he may be more concerned about health care had he emerged from a different profession.

None of this is a particularly hard knock on Rubin. Discussions about economic priorities should have lots of perspectives. The problem is, too often, only Rubin's is heard. As Kuttner recounts, "[w]hen the Democrats took back the House in 2006, incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi advised the new Democratic caucus that its first two briefings would include one on defense, with three experts of differing views. On the economy, Robert Rubin would be appearing, solo." Rubin is treated as an economic demigod among the Democrats, and Kuttner is arguing that, well, maybe the banker's perspective could use some balance -- or at least some context. Rubin is, I fear, but a man, and one shaped by his own class and profession and education and contacts and experiences. I tend to think Rubin's actually done a rather good job balancing much of that out. But his reputation and power exceed even his considerable talents, and Kuttner's attempt to dramatize those drawbacks seems valuable to me.